Queering global health: a feminist and lesbian, gay, and bisexual perspective
Authors: Women's Rights Network, LGB Alliance
Journal: The Lancet Global Health (2022)

We are writing in response to the Viewpoint by Suntosh Pillay and colleagues (April, 2022)1Pillay SR Ntetmen JM Ne JA Queering global health: an urgent call for LGBT+ affirmative practices.Lancet Glob Health. 2022; 10: e574-e578Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar entitled “Queering global health: an urgent call for LGBT+ affirmative practices.” As feminists and campaigners for lesbian, gay, and bisexual rights, we assumed it was a parody that it is being stated that global health inequalities can be resolved through so-called queer disturbance; the Viewpoint does not address the consequential misogyny and homophobia of the illogical application of so-called queer theory, and that in reality, queer theory can exacerbate many health inequalities. The authors state they use the term queer “in line with the global reappropriation of the term”. Thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are disgusted by this slur. Slurs remain slurs, even when there are assertions that they have been reclaimed.2Hom C The semantics of racial epithets.Journal Philos. 2008; 105: 21Crossref Scopus (184) Google Scholar The final paragraph states: “To queer global health, we must rebel towards global justice. Boundaries must be bravely transgressed as processes of ‘queer disturbance’”. However, it is unclear how queer disturbance will improve global health, and no evidence is given. There are several examples of where the application of queer theory can increase health inequality. One example includes efforts to “queer the language” and change from using sex-based language; this is often confusing to non-native speakers, and those with speech, language, and communication needs.4Money D Hartley K McAnespie L et al.Inclusive communication and the role of speech and language therapy: Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists position paper.https://www.rcslt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/20162209_InclusiveComms_final.pdfDate: Sept, 2016Date accessed: March 12, 2022Google Scholar Desexing the language can even change the original meaning of the health message. This change is particularly detrimental for breastfeeding; for example, human milk could mean breastmilk, expressed milk, or donor milk, and confusion surrounding messaging can be disruptive to establishing good breastfeeding practices.5Gribble KD Bewley S Bartick MC et al.Effective communication about pregnancy, birth, lactation, breastfeeding and newborn care: the importance of sexed language.Front Glob Womens Health. 2022; 3818856Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 6WHOInfant and young child feeding.https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/infant-and-young-child-feedingDate: June 9, 2021Date accessed: March 8, 2022Google Scholar We do not believe that queering public health will deliver on the promise of better global health or even better health care for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities. Such an effort to “queer public health” and discuss the community as if it were one cohesive group could lead to unintended harm for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities, in addition to harm to women and children. We declare no competing interests. Queering global health: an urgent call for LGBT+ affirmative practicesThis Viewpoint was submitted in response to the call for papers on the theme “What is wrong with global health?”. We answer the question simply: global health under-represents the experiences of LGBT+ people. Queer contexts are missing from the pages of this journal—a strange exclusion given the journal's commitment to diversity and inclusion of marginalised voices. Indeed, there is a general neglect within global health scholarship of the intersection between health inequities and LGBT+ populations in low-income and middle-income countries in Africa. Full-Text PDF Open AccessQueering global health: a feminist and lesbian, gay, and bisexual perspective – Authors' replyWe are grateful for the engagement of the Women's Rights Network and LGB Alliance with our Viewpoint, which is, of course, open to scholarly debate and intellectual disagreement. However, we disagree with their criticisms because many of their inferences are an overreach of what our argument is advocating for. Full-Text PDF Open Access